§ The result
Thomas International leads Humanly by 6 points.
Thomas International scores 48 and Humanly 42 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and Screening cohorts. Thomas International leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Data Governance Disclosure, while Humanly leads 2, including Human Oversight Design. Data Governance Disclosure is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Humanly 40, Thomas International 57, 15% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Humanly
Conversational AI for high-volume recruiting that engages, screens, and schedules candidates across chat, SMS, email, voice, and video, with structured AI interviews and automated scoring.
Vendor profile
Thomas International
Thomas International provides psychometric and aptitude assessments (behaviour/DISC, cognitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence) with an AI coaching layer, used for hiring, candidate selection and employee development.
§ The record
Humanly is filed under Screening AI, Thomas International under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Humanly | Thomas International |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 1981 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Humanly 40 · Thomas International 57
2.5 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Humanly 45 · Thomas International 54
1.8 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Humanly 30 · Thomas International 40
1.2 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Humanly 58 · Thomas International 51
0.8 weighted points to Humanly
8% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Humanly 52 · Thomas International 60
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
18% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Humanly 40 · Thomas International 43
0.5 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Humanly 35 · Thomas International 33
0.3 weighted points to Humanly
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -5.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Humanly minus Thomas International.
| Category | Weight | Humanly | Thomas International | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 54 | -9 | -1.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 43 | -3 | -0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 33 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 57 | -17 | -2.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 51 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 40 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 60 | -8 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 48 (F) | -6 | -5.6 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Humanly | Thomas International | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Humanly has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Thomas International has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 35 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Humanly, across 3 distinct source domains, and 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Humanly last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next